Push vs.

Pull Process Control

IE 3265 POM
Slide Set 9
R. Lindeke, Sp 2005

Basic Definitions

MRP (Materials Requirements Planning). MRP is the

basic process of translating a production schedule for
an end product (MPS or Master Production
Schedule) to a set of time based requirements for all
of the subassemblies and parts needed to make that
set of finished goods.

JIT Just-in-Time. Derived from the original Japanese

Kanban system developed at Toyota. JIT seeks to
deliver the right amount of product at the right time.
The goal is to reduce WIP (work-in-process)
inventories to an absolute minimum.

Why Push and Pull?

MRP is the classic push system. The MRP system

computes production schedules for all levels based
on forecasts of sales of end items. Once produced,
subassemblies are pushed to next level whether
needed or not.

JIT is the classic pull system. The basic mechanism

is that production at one level only happens when
initiated by a request at the higher level. That is, units
are pulled through the system by request.

Comparison

These methods offer two completely different approaches to basic production

planning in a manufacturing environment. Each has advantages over the other,
but neither seems to be sufficient on its own. Both have advantages and
disadvantages, suggesting that both methods could be useful in the same
organization.

Main Advantage of MRP over JIT: MRP takes forecasts for end product
demand into account. In an environment in which substantial variation of sales
are anticipated (and can be forecasted accurately), MRP has a substantial
advantage.

Main Advantage of JIT over MRP: JIT reduces inventories to a minimum. In

addition to saving direct inventory carrying costs, there are substantial side
benefits, such as improvement in quality and plant efficiency.

Comparisons (cont.)
Advantages

Disadvantages

JIT PULL
Limited and known Final Inventory

Every job is a High Stress Rush

order

Worker only consume their time &

Raw Materials on what is actually
needed

Balanced systems MUST be in

place

Setup times will greatly impact

Quality MUST be High each piece throughput
has a definite place to go else
Any problem will lead to unhappy
immediate feedback is given
customers (either internal or
external)

Comparisons (cont.)
Advantages

Disadvantages

MRP PUSH
Allows Managers to manage that
is, plan and control things

Can lead to large inventories

Requires intricate knowledge of

Production Times & Product Flow

Can generate large quantities of

scrap before errors are discovered

Can lead to economies of scale in

purchasing and production

Requires diligence to maintain

effective product flow

Allows for the planning and

completion of complex assemblies as Requires maintenance of large and
sub-components are delivered only
complex databases
by scheduled need

Focusing on JIT

JIT (Just In Time) is an outgrowth of the Kanban system developed by

Toyota.
Kanban refers to the posting board (and the inventory control cards
posted there) where the evolution of the manufacturing process would
be recorded.
The Kanban system is a manual information system that relies on
various types of inventory control cards.
Its development is closely tied to the development of SMED: Single
Minute Exchange of Dies, that allowed model changeovers to take
place in minutes rather than hours.
The Fundamental Idea of JIT and Lean Manufacturing Systems in
General (an Americanization of the Toyota P. S.) is to empower the
workers to make decisions and eliminate waste wherever it is found

The Tenets of JIT/Lean

Empower

the workers:

Workers

are our intelligent resources allow them to

exhibit this strength
Workers ultimately control quality lets them do their job
correctly (Poka-Yoke)
Dont pit workers against each other eliminate piecework disconnected from quality and allow workers to
cooperate in teams to design jobs and expectations

The Tenets of JIT/Lean

Eliminate Waste

Waste is anything that takes away from the operations

GOAL (to make a profit and stay in business!)
Reduce inventory to only what is absolutely needed
Improve Quality scrap and rework are costly and disrupt flow
Only make what is ordered
Make setups and changes quickly and efficiently
Employ only the workers needed
Eliminate Clutter it wastes time

Features of JIT Systems

Small Work-in-Process Inventories.
Advantages:
1. Decreases Inventory Costs
2. Improves Efficiency
3. Reveals quality problems (see Figure 7-10)
Disadvantages:
1. May result in increased worker idle time
2. May result in decreased throughput rate

River/Inventory Analogy
Illustrating the Advantages of Just-in-Time

Revealing fundamental problems is the noted

competitive advantages of JIT/Lean

Features of JIT Systems (continued)

Kanban Information Flow System
Advantages
1. Efficient tracking of lots
2. Inexpensive implementation of JIT
3. Achieves desired level of WIP based on Number of
Kanbans in the system
Disadvantages
1. Slow to react to changes in demand
2. Ignores predicted demand patterns (beyond 2 months or so)

Focus on The Kanban

Typically it is a 2-card system

The P (production) Card and W (withdrawal) Card
Limits on product inventory (number of P & W cards)
are set by management policy
The count is gradually lowered until problems
surface
The actual target level (card count) is based on short
term forecasting of demands

Focus on The Kanban

Focus on The Kanban the worker as

manager

P cards cycle from their accumulation post at Center

1 to product (when a defined trigger point is reached)
and then to output queue
When trigger level is reached, Ct 1 worker pulls
product from Ct 1 Wait point queue and replaces the
Ct 1 W-cards with Ct 1 P-Cards which then are
loaded to the Ct 1 processors the worker puts Ct 1
W-Cards to his/her acc. Post for W-cards
Finished Product is pushed into the Ct 1 output
queue

Focus on The Kanban the worker as

manager

A second worker (Ct 2s worker) watches for accumulation of Ct

2 W-Cards
When it reaches their trigger level, he/she pulls product into Ct
2 Holding area after replacing Ct 1 P-Cards with their W-Cards
and returns Ct 1 P-Cards to their Acc. Post for Ct. 1 workers
benefit
They also watch for accumulation of Ct. 2 P-Cards on their acc.
Post and when trigger count is reached they pull product from
holding area and replace Ct 2 W-Cards w/ Ct 2 P-Cards then
push it into the processors
And around and around they go!

Focus on The Kanban

So how many cards?

speaking of which, a
card is associated
with a container (lot)
of product so the
number of P & W
cards at a station
determines the
inventory level of a
product!

y
y

DL w
a

is # of Kanbans

D is 'average' demand
L is lead time (proc+wait+travel+others)
w is buffer stock/ set by policy
typically 10% of DL
a is container cap. < 10% of daily demand

Focus on The Kanban

Lets

look at an example:

950

units/month (20 productive days) 48/day

Container size: a = 48/10 = 4.8 5
L data:

A. setup is 45 minutes (.75 hour)

B. Setup is 3 minutes (.05 hr)
Wait time: .3 hr/container
Transport time: .45 hr/container
Prod Time: 0.09 hr/each = .45 hr/container

Focus on The Kanban

La .45 .75 .3 .45 1.95hr
D 48/ 8 6 / hr
DLa 6 1.95 11.7; wa .1 11.7 1.17
11.7 1.17
2.57 3
5
Lb .45 .05 .3 .45 1.25hr
ya

DLb 6 1.25 7.5

wb .1 7.5 .75
7.5 .75
yb
1.65 2
5

Requires 3*2 = 6*5 = 30

pieces in inventory also,
with 45mins set up 10 times
a day means that we
consume 450 min or 7.5
hours/day just setting up!

Here only 2*2 = 4*5 =

20 pieces and also
only .05*10 = 50 min
for setup (.833 hr) per
day

So, setup reduction impacts Factory

Capabilities & Inventory

Lets look at the effect of

studies comparing cost of
setup vs. inventory cost
like EOQ
Then lets see what we can
invest to reduce inventory
levels

We will spend money on

reducing setup cost (time)
and see if reduced
inventory will offset our
investment

This is the driving force for

SMED

K hQ
G Q, K

I ga K
Q
2
Like in EOQ
but last term is a 'Penalty'
factor for investing in setup
reduction rather than other
projects

Focus on the Penalty Factor

We can effectively model this a(K) function as a

logarithmic investment function
By logarithmic we imply that there is a an increasing
cost to continue to reduce setup cost
We state, then, that there is a sum of money that can
be invested to yield a fixed percentage of cost
reduction
That is (for example) for every investment of $200
the organization can get a 2% reduction in Setup
cost

Focus on the Penalty Factor

Lets say that the investment is $

buys a fixed percent reduction in
K0
If we get actually get 10% setup
cost reduction for $, then an
investment of $ will mean:

A second $ investment will lead to

a further 10% reduction or:

Setup cost drops to: 0.9K0

.9K-.1*.9K = .81K0

This continues: K3 = .729K0

Generalizing:

a q j gK 0 j
j

is 'number' of investments

q is the decimal equivalent of the

amount of reduction the $
investment will buy:
q=(1-%setup cost reduction)

Focus on the Penalty Factor

With that shape we

can remodel the a(K)
logarithmically:
a(K) = b[ln(K0) ln(K)]
where:

b
ln 1
q

G K 2 K h I b ln( K 0 ) ln K
Reverting back to
G(Q,K) function and now, minimize w.r.t. K
substituting Q*:
meaning: G'(K) = 0

Focus on the Penalty Factor

Finding the K* after the minimization:

2 2

2I b
K
h

I is MARR for the company

To determine what we should do, determine G(K)

using K0 and K*

Lets try one:

K0: $1000

: $95 for each 7.5% reduction in setup cost

Annual quantity: 48000
Holding cost: $4.50
95
95
b

1218.55
MARR is 13%
.07796

ln 1

1 .075

2 .13 1218.55
$0.232
48000 4.5
2

Continuing:

Investment to get to K*

a K 1218.55 ln 1000 ln .232

$10195.91

Testing for decision

No investment (K = K0):

At Min K*:

G K 0 2 K 0 h $20784.61
note : EOQ

2 K 0

4619 pieces

G K

2 K h Ia K
316.58 1325.47 $1642
EOQ K

2 K

70

SMED

Some terms:
SMED

= single minute exchange of dies

which means quick tooling change and low
setup time (cost)
Inside Processes setup functions that must
be done inside the machine or done when
the machine is stopped
Minimally

these would include unbolting departing

fixtures/dies and positioning and bolting new fixture/dies
to the machine

More Terms:
Setup activities related to tooling
changes that can be done outside of the
machine structure

Outside

These would include:

Bringing

Tooling to Machine
Bringing Raw Materials to Machine
Getting Prints/QC tools to machine
Etc.

Focus on SMED
When

moving from No Plan or Step 1 to

Step 2 (separating Inside from Outside
activities) investments would be relatively low
to accomplish a large amount of time (cost)
saving

Essentially a new set of change plans and a small

amount of training to the Material Handlers so that
they are alerted ahead of time and bring the
tooling out to the machine before it is needed

Moving to Step 3 and Step 4

Require

investments in Tooling
Require Design Changes
Require Family tooling and adaptors
Require common bolstering attachments
In general requiring larger and larger
investments in hardware to achieve smaller
and smaller time (cost) savings in setup

Therefore, we can say SMED is:

In reality the essence of

a Logarithmic setup
reduction plan!

Lets Look into Line Balancing

This is a process to optimize the assignment of

individual tasks in a process based on a planed
throughput of a manufacturing system

It begins with the calculation of a system Takt or

Cycle time to build the required number of units
required over time
From takt time and a structured sequential analysis
of the time and steps required to manufacture
(assembly) a product, compute the number of
stations required on the line
Once station count is determined, assign feasible
tasks to stations one-at-a-time filling up to takt time
for each station using rational decision/assignment
rules

Line Balancing

Feasible tasks are ones that have all

predecessors completed (or no
predecessors) and take less time
that the remaining time at a station
Feasibility is also subject to physical
constraints:
Zone Restriction the task are physically
separated taking to much movement time
to accomplish both within cycle (like
attaching tires to front/back axles on a
bus!)
Incompatible tasks the Grinding/Gluing
constraint

Some of the Calculations:

Takt (Cycle) Time:

Prod. time/day
Target output/day

CT

Total Time - Allowances (T)

Req'r Output (Q)

(min/unit)

Minimum # Workstations reqr:

Nt

(Total Job Task Time)

Efficiency Calculations:
N

Effline

i ti
i 1

C gN

here t i is the time actually consummed at the stations

J

Eff StK

t
j 1

t j is the time of any task actually assigned to St K

Lets Try One:

Times:
A

Production
Requirement
is 400/shift
D

A 25s; B 33s;C 33s;

D 21s; E 40s; F40s;
G 44s; H 19s

Calculation of Takt Time & Optimal

Station count

480 .12 * 480 422.4

C

1.056min 63.4 s
400
400
t 25 33 33 21 40 40 44 19

4.04
i

C
N f 5stations

63.4

To Perform Assignment we need

Assignment Rules:
Primary

Rule:

Assign task by order of those having largest

number of followers

Secondary

Rule:

Assign by longest task time

Primary Assignment Rule

Task

# Followers

A,D

E,B

F,C

Line Balancing Assignments

Feas.
Remaining
Task

Task w/
Most
followers

Task w/ L.
Time

Task

T. Time

Remaining
Time

25

38.4

B, D

21

17.4

40

23.4

33

30.4

40

23.4

33

30.4

44

19.4

19

.4

Station

The Line Balance

WS 3

WS 5

WS 1

H
WS 6

E
WS 2

F
WS 4

Checking Efficiencies:
T
255
Eff L

67%
C gN 6 63.4
46
Eff S 1
72.6%
63.4
33
Eff S 3
52.1%
63.4
63
Eff S 6
99%
63.4

Dealing with Efficiencies

We investigate other Rules application to improve

layout
1st by followers then by longest time then most followers
Alternating!

Consider line duplication (if not too expensive!)

which lowers demand on a line and increases Takt
time
The problem of a long individual task

In Koeln, long time stations were duplicated then the system

automatically alternated assignment between these stations